"If by C programming, you mean writing unreadable code with memory leaks that is impossible to support and violently breaks in unpredictable ways, then I am against it.
If by C programming, you mean writing elegant code that dances with the machine producing blazing code, optimized to the technology and problem at hand, then I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not compromise."
I really hate to say it, but I haven't seen this if-by-whiskey technique so formally named, but it does give me great insight into political double-speak. And perhaps it'll give me a few outs from tough situations. :-)
On the other hand you made an example that was accidentally valid. The axis of good/bad code exists independent of language. But there is no such thing is good/bad (morally) casks of whiskey.
Get to work strongly implying that C is the actual cause of all these things with no externalities, and then you get toward the fallacy.
mathattack was focusing on the programming language. To parallel the whiskey morals they need to focus on the act of programming, or on the programmer. Not the language.
I interpreted it as more of a longwinded way to take both sides of an issue to not anger either side. C programming seemed less controversial than something like guns or abortion, but perhaps not around here. :-)
If by C programming, you mean writing elegant code that dances with the machine producing blazing code, optimized to the technology and problem at hand, then I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not compromise."
I really hate to say it, but I haven't seen this if-by-whiskey technique so formally named, but it does give me great insight into political double-speak. And perhaps it'll give me a few outs from tough situations. :-)